Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Not Praying for the Redskins Tomorrow

Posted on: December 10, 2011 - 11:32pm

FurryCatHerder

Posts: 1253

Joined: 2007-06-02

Offline

Not Praying for the Redskins Tomorrow

I would like to state for the record that I will not be praying for the Redskins to win tomorrow. Therefore, if the Redskins lose, which they will, it will be y'alls fault because you don't believe in G-d and you didn't pray for them to win.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

You need a site? So you don't know what adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine are?

You worship a myth, a myth written in a scientifically ignorant age. There is no thinking life that does not have DNA to some sort of physical structure.

Again, hurricanes are a result of a process, not an ocean god named Neptune. Thinking is only found in evolution. PERIOD! The earth is not flat an the moon is not made of cheese, and your pet magic man claim explains nothing.

It is all in your head. Just like the Egyptians falsely FOR 3,000 years thought the sun was a god. Does the sun have DNA? Does the sun think like a human? You know damned well it does not have DNA nor can it think like a human. You with your non-material magic man claim, have even less than the Egyptians did.

Otherwise if evolution and DNA depended on the Jewish god to exist then your holy texts would be mandatory in science classes. Your holy texts are not required to explain reality and do NOT EXPLAIN reality. It is merely a comic book club you fell for.

And you also ignore that other people with other fictional god claims try to pull the same crap of trying to bastardize science to prop up their fictional god/s which you would not buy as arguments yourself.

You simply cannot stand that I a putting a mirror up to your bad logic and bad tactics.

Caposkia has been trying to spend the past 5 years in ONE thread to prop up his personal Jesus god with the claptrap of "metaphysics". Yet if he argued the god of Jesus with that, to you, you would not become a Christian.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

I'm saying that Atheism is used to justify NOT having any form of "Absolute Moral Code" -- one major byproduct of the advance of Atheism has been moral relativism, or "F*ck You, I Got Mine, Tough Luck."

Do you believe that your moral behavior is better than an atheist's ?

FurryCatHerder wrote:

No, of course not.

Then what is the value of a system of moral absolutes if it fails to produce behavior that is no more ethical than those who don't believe in a "Absolute Moral Code" ?

Atheism has been moral relativism, or "F*ck You, I Got Mine, Tough Luck."

I am an atheist and I do NOT buy into Beyond' Saving's "tough luck" attitude, and he is an atheist too.

Which makes morals an evolutionary trait and not an invention of a label.

Beyond has a "fuck you" "Sink or swim attitude" And I can tell you he has the absolute same attitude about claims of invisible friends as I do.

Now, how many right wing Evangelical economic nut jobs have that same attitude that you hear about in the republican party?

I am an atheist, Beyond is an atheist, but other than our lack of beliefs we opposites economically.

No different than Liberal Catholics of the north who think Jesus existed but are economic opposites of Baptists in Texas who kiss the ass of Bush. Both of them believe in Jesus but their morals are different.

Beyond and I are individuals, which is what you dont get. Being an atheist is not about being clones of each other otherwise I would agree with him on economics. i never will agree with Beyond on the issue of economics and I do not care that he shares my lack of belief.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

I'm saying that Atheism is used to justify NOT having any form of "Absolute Moral Code" -- one major byproduct of the advance of Atheism has been moral relativism, or "F*ck You, I Got Mine, Tough Luck."

Do you believe that your moral behavior is better than an atheist's ?

FurryCatHerder wrote:

No, of course not.

Then what is the value of a system of moral absolutes if it fails to produce behavior that is no more ethical than those who don't believe in a "Absolute Moral Code" ?

It provides a non-negotiable benchmark against which behavior can be evaluated.

I think me, you and Brian37 can all agree (G-d willing ...) that Beyond Saving's is a arrogant and greedy bastard who's going to have a really hard time when the revolution comes.

But only one of us can say that what he is doing is MORALLY wrong. You're stuck with "Gee, I don't like it." I have an absolute reference against which I can judge his behavior and it doesn't depend on me, you and Brian37 all agreeing with it.

We can all agree that there are physical laws which describe how far I can jump if I weigh so much and my legs can push down so hard. We can all agree that I won't fly off into space, so long as I'm standing at sea level on Earth. But we don't have a Law of Greediness and Greediness is a bigger threat to our present situation than Gravity.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

I'm saying that Atheism is used to justify NOT having any form of "Absolute Moral Code" -- one major byproduct of the advance of Atheism has been moral relativism, or "F*ck You, I Got Mine, Tough Luck."

Do you believe that your moral behavior is better than an atheist's ?

FurryCatHerder wrote:

No, of course not.

Then what is the value of a system of moral absolutes if it fails to produce behavior that is no more ethical than those who don't believe in a "Absolute Moral Code" ?

It provides a non-negotiable benchmark against which behavior can be evaluated.

I think me, you and Brian37 can all agree (G-d willing ...) that Beyond Saving's is a arrogant and greedy bastard who's going to have a really hard time when the revolution comes.

But only one of us can say that what he is doing is MORALLY wrong. You're stuck with "Gee, I don't like it." I have an absolute reference against which I can judge his behavior and it doesn't depend on me, you and Brian37 all agreeing with it.

We can all agree that there are physical laws which describe how far I can jump if I weigh so much and my legs can push down so hard. We can all agree that I won't fly off into space, so long as I'm standing at sea level on Earth. But we don't have a Law of Greediness and Greediness is a bigger threat to our present situation than Gravity.

It's a non-negotiable benchmark for us. God can't and doesn't need to adhere to it but will punish for it with a gleam in his eye and a hand on his schlong.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

I'm saying that Atheism is used to justify NOT having any form of "Absolute Moral Code" -- one major byproduct of the advance of Atheism has been moral relativism, or "F*ck You, I Got Mine, Tough Luck."

Do you believe that your moral behavior is better than an atheist's ?

FurryCatHerder wrote:

No, of course not.

Then what is the value of a system of moral absolutes if it fails to produce behavior that is no more ethical than those who don't believe in a "Absolute Moral Code" ?

It provides a non-negotiable benchmark against which behavior can be evaluated.

I think me, you and Brian37 can all agree (G-d willing ...) that Beyond Saving's is a arrogant and greedy bastard who's going to have a really hard time when the revolution comes.

But only one of us can say that what he is doing is MORALLY wrong. You're stuck with "Gee, I don't like it." I have an absolute reference against which I can judge his behavior and it doesn't depend on me, you and Brian37 all agreeing with it.

We can all agree that there are physical laws which describe how far I can jump if I weigh so much and my legs can push down so hard. We can all agree that I won't fly off into space, so long as I'm standing at sea level on Earth. But we don't have a Law of Greediness and Greediness is a bigger threat to our present situation than Gravity.

I don't think there's an absolute reference for morality, but I think there's an objective one -- the brain. We have to debate and reach consensus, and have a constitution that protects basic rights against the tyranny of the majority. This is the democratic process. For personal/non-governmental ethics the same procedure applies.

We can use psychology, philosophy, and neuroscience to understand how to increase our net happiness and success and reduce suffering, and the objective reference point is the brain. I say "objective" and not "absolute" because the brain could evolve and have different criteria for morality, while "absolute" means permanently unchangeable.

I don't think there's an absolute reference for morality, but I think there's an objective one -- the brain. We have to debate and reach consensus, and have a constitution that protects basic rights against the tyranny of the majority. This is the democratic process. For personal/non-governmental ethics the same procedure applies.

We can use psychology, philosophy, and neuroscience to understand how to increase our net happiness and success and reduce suffering, and the objective reference point is the brain. I say "objective" and not "absolute" because the brain could evolve and have different criteria for morality, while "absolute" means permanently unchangeable.

Okay, so a bunch of people sit down and do that.

Then what?

Because whatever a bunch of people sit down and decide is either talking to hear oneself talk, or is going to be enforced by Might Makes Right. And once you decide Might Makes Right for one scenario, it's valid for the rest of them, in which case you can chuck all those well thought out plans right out the window.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

I don't think there's an absolute reference for morality, but I think there's an objective one -- the brain. We have to debate and reach consensus, and have a constitution that protects basic rights against the tyranny of the majority. This is the democratic process. For personal/non-governmental ethics the same procedure applies.

We can use psychology, philosophy, and neuroscience to understand how to increase our net happiness and success and reduce suffering, and the objective reference point is the brain. I say "objective" and not "absolute" because the brain could evolve and have different criteria for morality, while "absolute" means permanently unchangeable.

Okay, so a bunch of people sit down and do that.

Then what?

Because whatever a bunch of people sit down and decide is either talking to hear oneself talk, or is going to be enforced by Might Makes Right. And once you decide Might Makes Right for one scenario, it's valid for the rest of them, in which case you can chuck all those well thought out plans right out the window.

History is filled with examples of religious adherents who, using their own might makes right approach, waged war on each other all the while each side claiming to be justified by their divinely inspired "absolute moral standards." What do you think the Crusades were waged about ? Real estate ? Call it a clash of religious "values".

Or what of the numerous inter-religious wars that were fought within Europe after it became polluted with the various sects of Christianity ? Where do you think the phrase "Kill them all, God will recognize his own" originated ? Is that enough "might" for you ?

No Furry, one religion's "absolute moral standard" that conflicts with another religion's "absolute moral standard" combined with the desire and ability to crush the competition means "might makes right" will settle the issue. It's a process that continues right up to the present moment.

The Muslims who crashed the passenger jets into the twin towers would no doubt claim that their homicidal "might makes right" approach was perfectly consistent with their own Islamic "absolute moral standards". There is no absolute moral standard, because there are many "absolute moral standards" and those "divine" moral standards are as varied and capricious as there are different god beliefs.

Forget atheists and our "wicked" moral relativism, instead look at the mass of moral and ethical confusion that exists between the various faith communities of the world.

Absolute moral standards ? Pick one of your choosing because the options are many.

I don't think there's an absolute reference for morality, but I think there's an objective one -- the brain. We have to debate and reach consensus, and have a constitution that protects basic rights against the tyranny of the majority. This is the democratic process. For personal/non-governmental ethics the same procedure applies.

We can use psychology, philosophy, and neuroscience to understand how to increase our net happiness and success and reduce suffering, and the objective reference point is the brain. I say "objective" and not "absolute" because the brain could evolve and have different criteria for morality, while "absolute" means permanently unchangeable.

Okay, so a bunch of people sit down and do that.

Then what?

Because whatever a bunch of people sit down and decide is either talking to hear oneself talk, or is going to be enforced by Might Makes Right. And once you decide Might Makes Right for one scenario, it's valid for the rest of them, in which case you can chuck all those well thought out plans right out the window.

You must think debate has some chance of working, or else you wouldn't bother; and rules should be enforced and violators should be punished and rehabilitated. This doesn't mean that the most powerful people know what's best for everyone, they might just be a bunch of bullies.

I'm not just talking about people debating like in Congress. I mean in everyday life, too, like with your friends, family, strangers, people on forums and the internet, etc.